The Kony 2012 video launched Tuesday of this week is closing on 50 million views on YouTube. In fact if you look at one Google analytics data-point it already passed the 50 million viewer mark earlier today. This is a remarkable achievement for word of mouth "marketing" to the conscience of young people (the video is most viewed by the 13-17 year old demographic). It asks real questions too of how politics will shape up in future.

"...there are questions about the charity's funding, its targeting of US leaders instead of African leaders to instigate change, and accusations that it is failing to criticise the Ugandan government, with its poor human rights record.

We want, with your help, to investigate this further. Our principle approach is to attempt to gather views from Uganda about whether this film is the right way to go about campaigning on the issue."

The Guardian's attempt to crowdsource an investigation of the video and whether it is the right way to go about campaigning is unusual, given that the Guardian is well known for its own stand against corruption among the powerful, and in favour of disadvantaged people.

The critique is very detailed, under the title Kony 2012: What is the real story? Guardian correspondent John Vidal says of Invisible Children:

They call themselves "a movement" seeking to end the conflict in Uganda and stop the abduction of children for use as child soldiers, but behind the slick website and the touchy-feely talk about "changing the course of human history", there's a hard-nosed money-making operation led by US filmmakers and accountants, communication experts, lobbyists and salespeople.

I felt a little nauseous watching the film. Couldn't help but feel the director's concern was less about addressing the needs of those affected today by the LRA and the complexities of tackling the rebel group, than as serving as a very slick promotional vehicle for his charity.

The Guardian carries a number of such derogatory quotes. The nub of the complaints seems to be that Invisible Children is not an NGO that puts people on the ground to help children in Uganda, and that Kony is, in any case, no longer operating in Uganda.

"From our perspective at Human Rights Watch, we definitely support the message of the film and we think it's great that they're bringing so much attention to the film with Kony's crimes and the phenomena of the LRA," Sawyer said.

"Hopefully this will create a movement for more pressure so that real action, effective action is taken to end the LRA, and arresting, capturing Kony is a key component of addressing the LRA problem," she added.

I find the Guardian's crowdsourcing of the story helpful in one respect only. It illustrates to me that we still need to grasp what the film is about. It's really very simple. It is a call to justice. It says, now that we are all connected is there anything in the voice of many millions of people that can make a material difference to the way justice is pursued, and the priorities of national and international judicial systems?

The Invisible Children video is heavily viewed from mobile phones (15 million) and is most popular with 13 - 17 year old females, then 18-24 year old males. Viewing seems to be fairly evenly distributed across the United States, Africa, Australia, western Latin America, China and Europe. If viral is the right word for popularity it has gone viral and it is very popular (see the Obama administration's views here).

I believe this age group is likely to be idealistic, no surprise there, but that they have a very valid point. With our current communications technology in place, should people, across borders, have a greater say in how we shape the ethics of foreign policy and international justice? The fact that young people are behind that question is a reason to celebrate.